Background
Black Gold Texas Tea Oil, LLC, and Antonio Serna appealed a case involving Petrosur, LLC. The appeal originated in the Ninth Court of Appeals but was transferred to the Sixth Court of Appeals under the Texas Supreme Court’s docket-equalization authority.
The Sixth Court initially dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution on June 9, 2026, because the appellants had not ensured the timely filing of the district clerk’s record. After first denying reinstatement, the court granted a later rehearing motion, withdrew the dismissal, and restored the appeal to its docket. The court then gave the appellants through August 17 to pay or make adequate payment arrangements for the clerk’s record and ordered the record filed by September 17.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. On September 17, the district clerk advised that the appellants still had neither paid for nor arranged payment for preparation of the clerk’s record, preventing its filing by the court-ordered deadline.
The court concluded that the continued failure to secure the clerk’s record made the appeal ripe for dismissal under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b), 37.3(c), and 42.3(b). The memorandum opinion did not address the merits of the underlying dispute.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must pay for or make adequate arrangements to pay for preparation of the appellate record.
- Reinstatement after an initial dismissal does not excuse compliance with new deadlines imposed by the appellate court.
- Failure to secure the clerk’s record after notice and an extended opportunity to comply can result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate rights can be lost through procedural noncompliance even when a court has already granted reinstatement. Counsel must promptly confirm payment arrangements and monitor the preparation and filing of every required component of the appellate record.